The experiments began three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices (Milgram, 1963)?" A poll conducted at Yale before the experiment showed that it was generally believed that people would act according to their own will and conscience when it came to being told to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality (Milgram, 1963). Milgram hypothesized that relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority- or just someone in a white coat, a symbol of authority.
For every incorrect answer the 'teacher' had to increase the level of shock. Some participants refused at a certain point to continue, even when the scientist tried to convince them not to stop. But the majority went all the way. The participants did not know that both, the fake scientist and the 'learner', were members of Milgram's team and that the whole situation was staged. Variations in Milgram's experiment * Milgram replaced the scientist by a regular guy in plain clothes.
I. We have become a society that focuses so much on producing, and the end product that we have become so unaware of the means necessary to attain the end result. Suppressing our own judgment to think; that people have become so blind to their ignorance, and try to use “it must be done, to achieve a greater goal” as an excuse for being ignorant without even knowingly being ignorant. It has become a second nature of ours. How many people must be tested, how many tests must take place, and how much does someone endure for someone to object and say no.
Inexperienced team members are given clear direction making it easier and understandable for them. It enables public service groups to be deployed quickly and efficiently and also allows large-scale coordination with other units. Disadvantages of this can include that it doesn’t allow the team members to take responsibility or use initiative which would make them unable to stand out from the team. Motivation is usually acquired through fear rather that respect. Teams respect is usually based on their ranks rather than these qualities and skills.
Many have wondered if the defendants are mentally ill or are they using the insanity defense as a way to escape their punishment. The infamous John Hinckley case showed many how the use of the insanity defense could cause a major uproar amongst people. John Hinckley used the insanity defense after shooting President Regan while trying to impress actress Jodie Foster and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. According to a poll by ABC News the day after the verdict, eighty-three percent of their national sample thought justice was not done in the Hinckley trial. Aside from the verdict from the Hinckley trial, the public’s view on the insanity defense is not altogether accurate.
The Ethical Point of View in the Three Strikes Law 3 The Ethical Point of View in the Three Strikes Law Over the years, their has been multiple problems in the justice system with repeated offenders,cost, overcrowded prison, and violent crimes across the nation. Many states have implemented programs as a possible solutions to these problems. In some cases, these programs have proving to be a success. On the other hand, in some of these cases offenders reject the programs and continue their violent behavior. This has caused many states to look at other ways to slow these
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14 to August 20 of 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. The original purpose of the experiment was to observe the effect that being in a prison like institutional setting has upon people, and how they react to being placed in positions both with and without authority. As it developed however, the experiment quickly spiralled out of control, the “guards” abuse of the “prisoners” became excessive causing them far more trauma than the experiment justified. Whether the experiment went horribly wrong or horribly right is entirely a matter of opinion, although the “horrible” seems pretty clear cut.
What the teacher did not know was that the learner was not actually receiving these shocks, and it was just a recording of the reactions made by the learner, such as shouts and screams. The objective of the experiment was to see how far and long the teacher would repeatedly shock the learner before completely refusing to keep asking questions. The only question that remains is this: Was this experiment ethical? The experiment was ethical, and for many reasons. The participants all
I don’t mean like their religious faith, although that may have had plenty to do with it as well. What I mean is the blind faith that allowed for these children to actually believe that what they were doing was going to create a long and lasting change to the world around them. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of something like that? It is stated in the text that “the rumor of such a marvelous deed resounded through the cities and towns,” which implies to me that the children were more fascinated with the claims that this boy had made, rather than if the claims were true. We are even told that the counsel the boy came through was unknown, however, the children still chose to follow and believe him, even against what would be their better judgment.
The Milgram Experiment One of the most famous studies of OBEDIENCE in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram. Experimenter: Stanley Milgram (Psychologist at Yale University) Subject: Conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Background: He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders of their superiors? Could we call them all accomplices?"